Snakes on a Plane
It's out. The bad a** Samuel L. Jackson in Snakes on a Plane. And what does Snakes on a Plane have to do with this blog? Plenty.
Snakes on a Plane delivers B-movie junk food perfectly. In the theater where I saw it, people were screaming/howling, the 2006 equivalent of going to The Rocky Horror Picture Show.
The NY Times, of all papers, said it delivered B-movie entertainment--and did it well. The reviewer got it, as did a lot of online reviews I read. Not so the paper where I live. The reviewer DIDN'T get it. Not only did he pan the picture, he panned it while standing on a soapbox yapping about how inappropriate it is in today's travel climate (um . . . yeah . . . I am SURE terrorists are now going to sneak cobras on planes). And basically judged it against . . . well, non-B-movies. Which isn't fair.
You see . . . some movies deliver action and gore and violence and sex. And some deliver a message and period costumes.
Same for books. If you buy a book with a sassy pink cover and martini glass on it, expect a glossy beach read. Judge it as that. If it doesn't deliver, then . . . okay, but don't judge it against War and Peace. If it delivers more with its themes and characters--even better.
When people ask me what I write, and what book they should "start with" if they want to read my work, I first find out what they like to read. If it's a mob story they want, then I steer them toward THE ROOFER with the caveat that it's violent and gritty. If they want a romantic comedy, clean enough for most anyone's sensibilities today, no curse words, etc., then I steer them to MAFIA CHIC. If they can handle a book with a trannie is the heroine's best friend, then DIARY OF A BLUES GODDESS. And if they don't mind a woman who curses like a sailor and drinks a lot of tequila, then SPANISH DISCO will be fine.
Someone once tried to insult me by denigrating "chick lit." She did in front of a room full of people and put me on the spot. I reminded her there are books for everyone. I don't read commercial fiction all the time, in fact rarely. I read nonfiction. I just enjoy it . . . history books and philosophy books. But every once in a while, someone from my old book group will suggest something I had never thought about reading--and I am often pleasantly surprised. But always, always, I make sure that I understand what sort of reading experience I am getting for my money.
Snakes on a Plane may never win an Oscar. In fact, I can virtually guarantee it won't. But for people who want to have the "experience" of seeing it in a theater, it's fun. You have to judge it against its B-movie peers, just as you have to judge a book by what its aim is. If you want a bodice ripper with a happily ever after, then go ahead and read it and enjoy it and make apologies to no one. It's like people who apologize for watching some trashy TV show. Hey . . . it's your way to decompress, and if you want to watch a bunch of wackos stuck in a house on Big Brother, make some microwave popcorn and enjoy.
And just remember . . . next time you're on a plane? A snake may come up through the toilet and bite you!
Snakes on a Plane delivers B-movie junk food perfectly. In the theater where I saw it, people were screaming/howling, the 2006 equivalent of going to The Rocky Horror Picture Show.
The NY Times, of all papers, said it delivered B-movie entertainment--and did it well. The reviewer got it, as did a lot of online reviews I read. Not so the paper where I live. The reviewer DIDN'T get it. Not only did he pan the picture, he panned it while standing on a soapbox yapping about how inappropriate it is in today's travel climate (um . . . yeah . . . I am SURE terrorists are now going to sneak cobras on planes). And basically judged it against . . . well, non-B-movies. Which isn't fair.
You see . . . some movies deliver action and gore and violence and sex. And some deliver a message and period costumes.
Same for books. If you buy a book with a sassy pink cover and martini glass on it, expect a glossy beach read. Judge it as that. If it doesn't deliver, then . . . okay, but don't judge it against War and Peace. If it delivers more with its themes and characters--even better.
When people ask me what I write, and what book they should "start with" if they want to read my work, I first find out what they like to read. If it's a mob story they want, then I steer them toward THE ROOFER with the caveat that it's violent and gritty. If they want a romantic comedy, clean enough for most anyone's sensibilities today, no curse words, etc., then I steer them to MAFIA CHIC. If they can handle a book with a trannie is the heroine's best friend, then DIARY OF A BLUES GODDESS. And if they don't mind a woman who curses like a sailor and drinks a lot of tequila, then SPANISH DISCO will be fine.
Someone once tried to insult me by denigrating "chick lit." She did in front of a room full of people and put me on the spot. I reminded her there are books for everyone. I don't read commercial fiction all the time, in fact rarely. I read nonfiction. I just enjoy it . . . history books and philosophy books. But every once in a while, someone from my old book group will suggest something I had never thought about reading--and I am often pleasantly surprised. But always, always, I make sure that I understand what sort of reading experience I am getting for my money.
Snakes on a Plane may never win an Oscar. In fact, I can virtually guarantee it won't. But for people who want to have the "experience" of seeing it in a theater, it's fun. You have to judge it against its B-movie peers, just as you have to judge a book by what its aim is. If you want a bodice ripper with a happily ever after, then go ahead and read it and enjoy it and make apologies to no one. It's like people who apologize for watching some trashy TV show. Hey . . . it's your way to decompress, and if you want to watch a bunch of wackos stuck in a house on Big Brother, make some microwave popcorn and enjoy.
And just remember . . . next time you're on a plane? A snake may come up through the toilet and bite you!
posted by Erica Orloff at 8:03 PM
16 Comments:
::Sigh:: Snakes sounds so like the kind of "B" movie I'd adore -- except for the fact I have what seems to be a pathalogical fear of snakes. So I will have to pass, I'm afraid. That's a shame because there really aren't that many good "B" films these days -- and certainly not many that embrace their "B"-ness.
I find it ridiculous that people get snooty and start trying to make people feel bad about what they read/watch. It's as if they think you can only read something serious or your mind will turn to mush. There's enough room for me to read War Against the Weak and the lastest Blaze; it's the variety which keeps me interested.
caro:
My son has a pet python named Lydia. Alas, Lydia and I are not quite friends. And . . . as a Buddhist, I am squeamish about buying the twice-a-month mouse which is given to Lydia to . . . gulp . . . eat! Originally, Lydia was to eat frozen rat pups--also not my fave, but at least I could pretend they were mousicles. Now . . . live food is her only way to eat and I hate it. And Snakes is defnitely a creep-out fest in terms of those slithering things.
And yes, I totally agree. I am getting ready for a week at the beach. I'll take something like The Elegant Universe for when I have some quiet moments, and I'll take Oryx and Crake, by Margaret Atwood, still sitting here. And UNDOUBTEDLY, I will take ridiculous magazines like The Star that my daughter gets, but I will read them and relax too. In the end, we want to escape when we read a book, or go to a movie or watch TV. Sometimes, we want to be stirred emotionally . . . sometimes to feel angry or sad or to laugh. Sometimes we just want to eat popcorn and have fun.
Thanks for dropping by,
E
Snakes! Eew. I can feel the slithering just thinking about it. I don't think I have the intestinal fortitude to go for the whole theatre experience, but I'll likely see it on DVD when only the family is here to laugh when I get the willies.
As far as reading/movie choices, I think it goes to comments made on earlier posts, that whole pretentious, Emperors new clothes type mentality. You are what you read etc. Ah, no. If I choose a biography, health or history, I am seeking information. Philosophy, I'm seeking enlightenment. Pink fuzzy drink...I'm seeking entertainment. That simple. I can have all, or I can stick to the martini glass and I still have no fear of my brain turning to mush.
Judgments about 'those' type books have always been though. My 80 yr. old auntie reads strictly romance imprints. She told me when she used to get her monthly books, they came with a nifty cover to conceal the actual bodice ripper book cover. WHEN I become published, she'd like me to get her one. Still worried about peer judgments at 80, ya think?
Have a blast at the beach, Erica. I'm sure you've earned it!
AMEN, Erica! I hate, hate, hate it when people turn their nose up and say bullshit things like, "How do you have time to watch TV?" Or, "How can you read something like THAT?"
A fun story is a fun story is a fun story, no matter if it's delivered as a movie, a hardback, a TV show or a paperback.
Whenever I hear a statement like that, I usually plaster on my biggest, winningest smile and say something like, "Boy, you must be really stressed out if you don't have time to have fun and watch TV or read a trashy novel."
I enjoyed your post and am looking forward to seeing the movie.
I haven't seen it but loved the fact that Sam Jackson said he would ONLY do the movie if they kept the name... it was in his contract... too funny ! But with the little guy we don't really *do* grown up movies anymore... sign. BUT I did see a commercial for the new Jason Statham movie, so yeah maybe it'll be a date night movie :)
g.
I'm terrified of BOTH snakes and flying, hense why I won't see it. However, I am upset that I'll be missing seeing Samuel L Jackson ranting in a movie the only way he knows how. I love how he rants and yells in his action movies.
BTW, I started Diary of a Blues Goddess today, and I love it so far!!
Hello ALL
I have been reading with interest the idea Erica raised and the unanimous statements of agreement it seems to have inspired. I am not sure I quite understand the point because this is how it reads to me.
You cannot say a work is bad (book, film magazine etc.), you cannot even say that writing is bad, but what you can say is that it is “different”. However by saying that it is “different” it can only be compared with similar “types” of work within that genre that it is different with, but any comparison even within that genre cannot judge the work to be bad,because someone might actually like it. But strangely you can judge it to be good. You can however say that people who say that it is bad and can be compared with works from different genres, are Pseudo intellectuals.
Let us assume there is rubbish out there, stuff that was just a joke to read, how many people does it take to say that they enjoyed that to make it immune from criticism?
Is all work then immune from negative criticism if somebody likes it? Even one person? And is that the criteria for saying that something is good or bad?
What would then be the point then in seeking to offer advice about the improvement of one’s writing style, if everything had merit?
Seán
Sean,
I don't think anyone is implying works are immune to criticism. The way I read this, the general consensus is we are all bothered by 'pseudo intellectuals' who group the entire romance/chick lit genres as crap and the readers of it as empty-headed.
You cannot take an epic saga that you payed 35.99 for in hardcover and has been on the bestseller list for 18 weeks and compare it to a 3.99 paperback from the drugstore, any more than you can compare a broadway show to a Jim Carey movie. You approach each expecting a different experience.
As far as who gets to define 'crap'??? There are names that appear regularly on the bestseller list and I can't choke back their work. There are also mid-listers who deliver a solid story every time...why haven't they made the list? Obviously my opinion differs from that of others. I still wouldn't call anything out-and-out crap. It simply isn't to my taste.
Just my $.02 worth
Hi Lainey,
Thanks for that - a good 0.2cents!! Much appreciated.
My problem was that that is precisely what was suggested, that certain works are immune from criticism as long as someone, anyone says they derived enjoyment from it. Had it have not been said thus I think the point may have been stronger, but not yet made.
Erica said at the end of her piece something to the effect that one cannot criticise someone who watches trashy TV. I wouldn't criticise them for watching it, I would would want to know what their claims were as far as its status was. I think there were claims from people here that some "trashy" stuff was worth the read, or the viewing. If that was the case what is it that makes it worth reading or viewing beyond simply saying that they derive pleasure from it. One must not be lured into the situation where a factual statement like, "one gains pleasure from something" is the same as "one is justified in gaining pleasure from something" and therefore it is fine to do it.
There are a lot of activities that people derive pleasure fro that they ought not to.
Best
Seán
"I think there were claims from people here that some "trashy" stuff was worth the read, or the viewing. If that was the case what is it that makes it worth reading or viewing beyond simply saying that they derive pleasure from it. One must not be lured into the situation where a factual statement like, "one gains pleasure from something" is the same as "one is justified in gaining pleasure from something" and therefore it is fine to do it.
There are a lot of activities that people derive pleasure fro that they ought not to."
I think what is missing here is a discussion of the differences between 'fact' and 'opinion'. Because an individual derives pleasure from an activity such as reading a $3.99 romance on the beach, it does not necessarily translate into a statement that that particular piece of literature is good, bad, or otherwise. What it does mean is that in that particular situation, that individual derives enjoyment from that activity. That is all it means. If for whatever reason, there are a lot of individuals who buy that piece of literature and take it to a beach to read it, it still does not translate into that piece being good or bad, It only means that there are a plethora of individuals that derive enjoyment from that activity. It could be shown that that particular piece of literature is popular for people who enjoy that activity. It could also be shown that they chose it for other reasons. However, that would require science and information outside of this discussion.
The point I endeavour to make here is that popularity and/or sales are NOT an exact measure of quality of prose. Nor are activities that people take pleasure in a measure of the quality of that person.
I am not trying to say that any of the points people have made are wrong, I just thought that there was a loose association between fact and opinion going on.
I hope that this helps. If not, just tell me to stuff it and I'll be quiet :)
Sean:
Exactly what is it that I ought not to derive pleasure from? Really. I'd like to know.
The whole point of this post is that, sometimes, pleasure needs no justification. It's okay to read a certain book or see a certain movie simply because you enjoy it.
It's a radical concept called...FUN.
You seem to have missed the point entirely. Allow yourself a scoop of ice cream and a Dean Koontz novel some day. Who knows? You might even enjoy yourself.
Jude,
A bag of BBQ chips and a box of swiss cake rolls and a Dean Koontz novel...yum. Pure unadulterated fun.
Kathy
Sounds like my kind of fun, Kathy!
BTW, I ordered the book you recommended on your blog. Looks like a great reference!
Jude,
The book is a great reference. It's helped me revamp a former manuscript and kick-off another.
I noticed your a "rat" as well. Us rats are creative folk, aren't we?
Kathy
Hi All:
I am back from the beach and have enjoyed reading the responses. I disagree that anyone has to "justify" what they enjoy. My point--and maybe I didn't word it quite right as I was packing and insane to get out of here--was this . . .
I think when you offer a serious critique of something, it has to be judged by its genre, by what it is trying to accomplish. Some critics miss that and brush anything that isn't high brow with a broad stroke, saying it's all crap. Well, as far as I'm concerned, there are levels of crap, if you will. Some B movies are really great B-movie entertainment, and some are really B-movie garbage (again, it's a matter of opinion, but we pop culture or movie fans know what we like). I have friends who love Beethoven, but their inner drag queen comes alive when they hear Gloria Gaynor. I have friends who love literature, who TEACH literature, but they like to curl up with a beach read when they go to the beach. It's escapism. I don't think anyone will confuse Snakes on a Plane with Sense and Sensibility, nor will anyone confuse To Kill a Mockingbird with James Patterson.
The additional point I intended is that I don't try to JUSTIFY (no offense, Sean) my TV selections. I don't watch a lot of TV, but when I do needlework at night, sometimes I sit and keep half an eye on TV, and I love Law & Order. I may go through a week where I watch a dozen of them late at night, and I may go through a six-month period where I don't see a single episode. BUT, I consider some TV to be very well-done--I have seen some PBS or A&E miniseries that I thought were better than a lot of theater releases. HBO has some great series. I consider a lot of TV "crap"--BUT I would not say to someone "My GOD, how can you watch that?" TV for a lot of people is escapism. I think you have to criticize against something's competition and genre.
And finally . . . my comments on Snakes were this. The people who sought out this movie GOT IT. It was a movie for the old Creature Feature fans, for the fans of B movies. The critic who tried to compare it to FILM on a high-brow level didn't get it. The NY TIMES DID. It is what it is, just like Rocky Horror was its own experience.
E
Post a Comment
<< Home